The 5870 is under 50% faster. You both seem to consider something 50% faster to be significantly faster. I would say that 100% faster is significant. If you are playing a video game, 50% is the difference between running at 20FPS and 30FPS. All you have to do on the lower one is reduce anti-aliasing or resolution.
On graphics here you previous suggested that the imac graphics were probably faster due to being a newer design. They're not and the aftereffects test on that same site showed a nice advantage in favor of the mac pro graphics.
AMD has had some amazing cards out recently at a 75W max tdp. If we do see a significant power consumption drop with ivy bridge/haswell, we could see some excellent options at the 45-65W range start to appear. The mac pro will eventually need a successor of some kind and I don't see a reason they couldn't leverage upward from the mini considering it fits more with their current design sense but has overall been met with mediocre sales. I hate that it's solely designed as a low end platform with the imac occupying the mid range.
On graphics here you previous suggested that the imac graphics were probably faster due to being a newer design. They're not and the aftereffects test on that same site showed a nice advantage in favor of the mac pro graphics.
AMD has had some amazing cards out recently at a 75W max tdp
That is still a considerable amount of power but then again AMD has made great strides in what those cards can do. I could see AMD becoming the only viable discreet GPU maker in a couple of years.
Quote:
. If we do see a significant power consumption drop with ivy bridge/haswell, we could see some excellent options at the 45-65W range start to appear.
That is exactly what I'm hoping for, something that is relatively low power yet a step above what they put in the Mini. Well if they could manage a 45 to 60 watt processor in the Mini that might work too. I just think such a processor deserves a little more external support to make it worthwhile.
Quote:
The mac pro will eventually need a successor of some kind and I don't see a reason they couldn't leverage upward from the mini considering it fits more with their current design sense but has overall been met with mediocre sales.
Are you talking Mini here when discussing sales? I ask because I'm not convinced the Mini does that bad sales wise. It certainly does better than the Mac Pro.
Quote:
I hate that it's solely designed as a low end platform with the imac occupying the mid range.
Yeah that really sucks. Plus I think the two models plus server version is a bit on the stupid side. I would have preferred that the four core model had it's own discreet GPU, preferably a significant step above the model in the middle. I'm not sure what Apples goal is with the current Mini marketing but I do wait for the Ivy Bridge rev as I'm hoping it closes the performance gap.
In the end though the Mini is limited significantly by it's case size. Not even Ivy Bridge can overcome that for all users.
That is still a considerable amount of power but then again AMD has made great strides in what those cards can do. I could see AMD becoming the only viable discreet GPU maker in a couple of years.
I know it is. The 5870 that's optional for the mac pro seems to have a tdp of 188W going by its generic retail version. The one I mentioned is obviously a workstation card so different firmware at least, but it is newer and gives an example of a solid card by AMD under the 100W mark. The gpu currently used in the imac which is designated as part of their mobile line is that high. For a performance desktop gpu it's a truly significant step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
That is exactly what I'm hoping for, something that is relatively low power yet a step above what they put in the Mini. Well if they could manage a 45 to 60 watt processor in the Mini that might work too. I just think such a processor deserves a little more external support to make it worthwhile.
Marvin mentioned 45W before. It sounded like he meant that was the total power budget for the machine. It seems like the quad i7 chip is 45W. The one in the mid range is 35W. I can't find a power budget for that gpu but it's probably quite low. They could have skimped on vram to keep to keep the power draw down. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect they're running pretty tight on cooling. I'd have to stress test one. The appeal to the machine is simply an inexpensive OSX box in relative terms. It's still limited enough that I doubt my next machine will be a mini, but I intend to do some testing. Supposedly next year we'll see a 35W quad i7 chip. Even then I'm unsure that 10W would allow for significantly better gpu power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Are you talking Mini here when discussing sales? I ask because I'm not convinced the Mini does that bad sales wise. It certainly does better than the Mac Pro.
I've read about shipping volumes before in various articles. It never seems that insane for Apple. The only thing that even slightly interests me about it I guess is that it's a non imac. The value of the imac is heavily leveraged by the inclusion of a display, particularly the 27" model. For me it's actually more cumbersome. I own better displays than the one used there, so it simply hogs a lot of desk real estate. It doesn't matter how thin they make it, as the footprint of a display in terms of depth hasn't been a real factor since crts. If they cut thickness by a quarter of an inch, you don't gain anything from it in terms of usable space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Yeah that really sucks. Plus I think the two models plus server version is a bit on the stupid side. I would have preferred that the four core model had it's own discreet GPU, preferably a significant step above the model in the middle. I'm not sure what Apples goal is with the current Mini marketing but I do wait for the Ivy Bridge rev as I'm hoping it closes the performance gap.
In the end though the Mini is limited significantly by it's case size. Not even Ivy Bridge can overcome that for all users.
Yeah It does have an interesting design, but the "server" moniker is weird even if they set it up slightly like a server (higher disk bandwidth, limited graphics, more cores). I've been hoping they'd work up from the mini rather than down from the mac pro for some time. In the end it's just gimmicky marketing on those "server" units. Since I need a new machine in 2012 I'll be testing out options. I'll be watching the prices on 8GB dimms too. Right now 8GB is basically the minimum for me in Windows or OSX. Not everything runs on 2-4. If 8GB dimms are still really expensive, it kills the potential for savings on a mini right there.
I know it is. The 5870 that's optional for the mac pro seems to have a tdp of 188W going by its generic retail version. The one I mentioned is obviously a workstation card so different firmware at least, but it is newer and gives an example of a solid card by AMD under the 100W mark. The gpu currently used in the imac which is designated as part of their mobile line is that high. For a performance desktop gpu it's a truly significant step.
The future does look bright for GPU computing. Though I have this fear that any performance gains we get will soon be eaten by high resolution displays.
Quote:
Marvin mentioned 45W before.
if he was talking about the processor he may be about right or slightly high. I just check the spec and the Mini power supply is rated 85 watts max AC power in. Subtract out efficiency losts, and power budgeting for the USB, FireWire and Thunderbolt ports and you don't have a lot left. They could have as little as 55 watts budgetted for the motherboard, that includes processor, RAM and support electronics. I say 55 but it could be as high as 65 watts. So depending upon how Apple allocated power they really are tight when the faster hardware is purchased.
Quote:
It sounded like he meant that was the total power budget for the machine. It seems like the quad i7 chip is 45W. The one in the mid range is 35W. I can't find a power budget for that gpu but it's probably quite low.
I'd guess the GPU is between 10 & 16 watts. Interestingly Intel doesn't spec max power so their processors can exceed stamped power levels briefly. The lack of a quad core model with GPU kinda tells me that there isn't enough power available to drive a GPU in that model.
Quote:
They could have skimped on vram to keep to keep the power draw down. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect they're running pretty tight on cooling.
Looks like it is an electrical limitation too. I haven't actually had time with the new technology Mini so I can't comment on its cooling practically. However it does look like they made great strides from a distance.
Quote:
I'd have to stress test one. The appeal to the machine is simply an inexpensive OSX box in relative terms. It's still limited enough that I doubt my next machine will be a mini, but I intend to do some testing. Supposedly next year we'll see a 35W quad i7 chip. Even then I'm unsure that 10W would allow for significantly better gpu power.
I like the Mini a lot but I'm not about to buy a machine these days with only two cores. I can see performance issues on my old MBP due to the lack of cores and RAM so I'm sticking to my guns here.
As to discreet GPUs who knows, there are a few things Apple could do to allocate more power. For example they could drop the FireWire port, drop a USB port to reallocate the power elsewhere. Also Ivy Bridge supposedly has at least some of the TB functionality built in, that again would save some power. They could also go SSD only internally and save some power.
Disk drives still use a lot of power so a solid state solution might be a significant gain. In the end though it comes down to adding up the available power and allocating what is left over to the GPU. Maybe they can get to 25 watts on the GPU. That would be nice.
Quote:
I've read about shipping volumes before in various articles. It never seems that insane for Apple. The only thing that even slightly interests me about it I guess is that it's a non imac.
Insane probably not however I don't think it is anywhere near as bad as the Pro. As I've said I frequently see the Mini on Apples top sellers list. I have to agree that the non iMac reality is an appeal here even if I would prefer something a bit better. The proverbial XMac if you will.
Quote:
The value of the imac is heavily leveraged by the inclusion of a display, particularly the 27" model. For me it's actually more cumbersome. I own better displays than the one used there, so it simply hogs a lot of desk real estate. It doesn't matter how thin they make it, as the footprint of a display in terms of depth hasn't been a real factor since crts. If they cut thickness by a quarter of an inch, you don't gain anything from it in terms of usable space.
The display doesn't bother me it is what is behind the display that is a problem. That is the difficulty in getting to and servicing the different components in the machine. Even if you pay somebody else to work on the machine it still adds cost and time to a repair.
Quote:
Yeah It does have an interesting design, but the "server" moniker is weird even if they set it up slightly like a server (higher disk bandwidth, limited graphics, more cores). I've been hoping they'd work up from the mini rather than down from the mac pro for some time.
when I think XMac I think a grown up Mini more than a shrunken Mac Pro. A shrunken Mac Pro would result in a machine designed to support yesterday's technologies. I'd rather see a XMac built to support tomorrows technologies.
In a way Mini is a platform for the technology of tomorrow. The problem is that makes for an expensive solution that is always a little less than desired. Mostly this is due to the small box, you can only get so much into the box at anyone time.
Quote:
In the end it's just gimmicky marketing on those "server" units. Since I need a new machine in 2012 I'll be testing out options. I'll be watching the prices on 8GB dimms too. Right now 8GB is basically the minimum for me in Windows or OSX. Not everything runs on 2-4. If 8GB dimms are still really expensive, it kills the potential for savings on a mini right there.
This issue with RAM is significant. It is one of the reasons I would like to see a chip set with a triple channel RAN controller. Three sockets would allow the use of 4 GB DIMMs but get you past the 8 GB limit economically. Or the 4GB limit with 2GB DIMMs. Right now I have no need for a 16GB machine, a 6GB machine though would remain useful for a long time. With the cost of 8GB DIMMs though you really can't consider the Mini to be an economical solution if you have high memory requirements. I guess the other option would be a dual channel system with to banks for a capacity of four DIMMs. That isn't likely to happen in the Mini though.
I believe that Ivy Bridge will give Apple the opportunity to dramatically improve the Mini. The problem is will they do that or go for a minimal system as they have in the past.
The value of the imac is heavily leveraged by the inclusion of a display, particularly the 27" model. For me it's actually more cumbersome. I own better displays than the one used there, so it simply hogs a lot of desk real estate. It doesn't matter how thin they make it, as the footprint of a display in terms of depth hasn't been a real factor since crts. If they cut thickness by a quarter of an inch, you don't gain anything from it in terms of usable space.
I agree with you completely; we're in the same boat. Although I think we must give Apple due credit-the iMac display is far superior to anything else you can get in such a configuration-I use two displays that together represent a considerable investment, and I'm not about to put one in storage. So yes, the inclusion of the display keeps me from considering an iMac, which otherwise fits most of my needs quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to discreet GPUs who knows, there are a few things Apple could do to allocate more power. For example they could drop the FireWire port, drop a USB port to reallocate the power elsewhere. Also Ivy Bridge supposedly has at least some of the TB functionality built in, that again would save some power. They could also go SSD only internally and save some power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
when I think XMac I think a grown up Mini more than a shrunken Mac Pro. A shrunken Mac Pro would result in a machine designed to support yesterday's technologies. I'd rather see a XMac built to support tomorrows technologies.
This reminds me of another concern that's been nagging me: in the past, Apple has not been shy about abandoning technology that it considers out of date. Since we've been discussing new chipsets, I/O, and forms, I wonder if one reason we haven't seen a Mac Pro update is because, as some have suggested in this thread, plans are in the works for something radically new?
I think this would be a concern for many Pro users, as we have a lot invested in 'older' technologies, such as storage, and certainly don't want to replace it all. In other words, would a new design limit memory slots, forcing some of us to buy 8GB (or more) dimms? Would the new chipsets still support Boot Camp? Would we be able to install our internal raid? I'm all for something that's more powerful, but I don't want (and can't afford) to replace everything else in order to get it.
I agree with you completely; we're in the same boat. Although I think we must give Apple due credit-the iMac display is far superior to anything else you can get in such a configuration-I use two displays that together represent a considerable investment, and I'm not about to put one in storage. So yes, the inclusion of the display keeps me from considering an iMac, which otherwise fits most of my needs quite well.
Yeah same here, but I have specific concerns about imacs. One is with the top available cpus if you're running that thing hard for a long period of time as in processing 1-2000 raw files (I recall you're a photographer) or rendering stills or video at higher resolutions, they get quite hot. I've also seen some screens that really did not age well. Sometimes it's terrible, but I have yet to see that on the newest ones. Have you ever seen that blotchy magenta cast that starts around the edges on some? It could have been heat or it could have been a panel flaw but I've seen it a number of times. Overall regarding displays yes it's competitive for computers of similar form factor. It's still a lot to spend just to get said form factor.
[QUOTE=Joe Blue;1965946
This reminds me of another concern that's been nagging me: in the past, Apple has not been shy about abandoning technology that it considers out of date. Since we've been discussing new chipsets, I/O, and forms, I wonder if one reason we haven't seen a Mac Pro update is because, as some have suggested in this thread, plans are in the works for something radically new?
I think this would be a concern for many Pro users, as we have a lot invested in 'older' technologies, such as storage, and certainly don't want to replace it all. In other words, would a new design limit memory slots, forcing some of us to buy 8GB (or more) dimms? Would the new chipsets still support Boot Camp? Would we be able to install our internal raid? I'm all for something that's more powerful, but I don't want (and can't afford) to replace everything else in order to get it.[/QUOTE]
Ummm I can address this to a degree. First boot camp doesn't have to go anywhere. Macs use the same hardware as windows outside of the tablet/phone market. The design of the mac pro is kind of archaic/dated. It doesn't make amazing use of the space. It doesn't have cooling which vastly exceeds that of other systems. It is quiet which is nice. Four memory slots + internal sata bays is pretty much the norm for any midrange configuration these days. The mac pro is really light on features for its size and price point. It's just an overall lackluster solution. If you look at the history of component pricing in the line, we should have a hexacore baseline in that line.
I agree with you completely; we're in the same boat. Although I think we must give Apple due credit-the iMac display is far superior to anything else you can get in such a configuration-I use two displays that together represent a considerable investment, and I'm not about to put one in storage. So yes, the inclusion of the display keeps me from considering an iMac, which otherwise fits most of my needs quite well.
This reminds me of another concern that's been nagging me: in the past, Apple has not been shy about abandoning technology that it considers out of date. Since we've been discussing new chipsets, I/O, and forms, I wonder if one reason we haven't seen a Mac Pro update is because, as some have suggested in this thread, plans are in the works for something radically new?
I don't have details and the source is weak but the rumor is that Intel or somebody found a bug in the Sandy Bridge E series chips that where due out this quarter. So it could be 2012 before we see a new Mac Pro. Note that this is an issue even if the platform is radically new.
Quote:
I think this would be a concern for many Pro users, as we have a lot invested in 'older' technologies, such as storage, and certainly don't want to replace it all. In other words, would a new design limit memory slots, forcing some of us to buy 8GB (or more) dimms?
These really aren't valid concerns. I know you really don't want to hear that but Apple can't design a modern machine for yesterdays technology. Earlier today I was reading about Intel/Micron creating a new partnership with I believe Samsung to help standardize a very high speed memory solution. DIMMs could quickly become a thing of the past when it comes to memory solutions.
In any event the point is the market isn't well served by Apple stressing backwards compatibility on important parts like RAM. Sure it is nice when possible, but would you really want to put 33MHz memory in a Mac Pro? One day current memory technology will die, just like the old SIMMs of the past.
On another note it looks like Intel will transition its SSD solutions to PCI-Express soon. Even SATA will die soon.
Quote:
Would the new chipsets still support Boot Camp? Would we be able to install our internal raid? I'm all for something that's more powerful, but I don't want (and can't afford) to replace everything else in order to get it.
Boot camp most likely. Internal RAIDs who knows.
Note that I don't believe at this time that Apple will come out with a Mac Pro that is totally unusable for professionals. My concern has always been for those of us more middle of the road in needs. However that being said it would be foolish to think the Mac Pro will always have the same enclosure with the same internal components capability.
For you the unfortunate reality is that you will have to wait to see what will be released. They could recycle the same old housing or they could go to something more flexible. I'm still thinking that the best path for Apple would be a smaller enclosure that fits on a standard rack well or looks good on the desktop. This would solve the hand wringing about an Apple server and the low sales of the Mac Pro. That is assuming they control the costs properly.
On graphics here you previous suggested that the imac graphics were probably faster due to being a newer design. They're not and the aftereffects test on that same site showed a nice advantage in favor of the mac pro graphics.
The 6000-series is a newer design than the 5000-series but the desktop models have more and/or higher clocked processing units. After Effect isn't a GPU app like Motion, it primarily uses the CPU for rendering. The following benchmark is comparing a 6-core Xeon vs 4-core i7:
I hate that it's solely designed as a low end platform with the imac occupying the mid range.
It's been designed to be small and power efficient. Those aren't synonymous with low-end. The 15" MBP is a high-end laptop but thin and power efficient and can easily replace a desktop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Marvin mentioned 45W before. It sounded like he meant that was the total power budget for the machine.
Just the CPU + GPU. The base Mini is a 35W CPU/GPU, the middle one is 35W CPU + 10-15W GPU and the quad i7 is a 45W CPU/GPU. The Thunderbolt port can supply 10W of power and other parts will consume some power too.
If Intel pulls the CPUs down in power draw by 25% while still getting a 30-50% increase, you will be able to get an i7 server model that comes close to the current top iMac within a 30W budget and still leaves room for a 28nm AMD 7000 series GPU, which should double performance over this year's 6000-series equivalent to match the 5770 and 6970M.
I don't expect them to put a GPU in the server model but the middle model will still be a very capable machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I can see performance issues on my old MBP due to the lack of cores and RAM so I'm sticking to my guns here.
Is your old MBP hyper-threaded? Handbrake flies along on even the i5 dual-cores with 4 threads. It gets 200-400FPS at times encoding H.264.
The 6000-series is a newer design than the 5000-series but the desktop models have more and/or higher clocked processing units. After Effect isn't a GPU app like Motion, it primarily uses the CPU for rendering. The following benchmark is comparing a 6-core Xeon vs 4-core i7:
There's another one that has a gpu test in there. i'll find it later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's been designed to be small and power efficient. Those aren't synonymous with low-end. The 15" MBP is a high-end laptop but thin and power efficient and can easily replace a desktop.
Bleh see for some purposes I do agree. It depends how much power you need. As I've mentioned I don't like the current flow to Apple's line as a whole. The mini has come a long way, but remember it started out as a definitively low end solution with the G4 setup. The imac is okay but it's not really my thing entirely. What I dislike is how horrid of a value the mac pro remains. I'd really like to see them generate kind of a power desktop line but something which could serve more markets than the current setup. The imac is heavily leveraged by being an all in one. Consider that minus thunderbolt a comparable configuration to the i7 imac on the windows oem end can be purchased for just under $1000. The mini really isn't far off the mark, but it could be better than it is while maintaining Apple's margins without a massive increase in price. Consider that the imac comes with a display starting just $200 higher than the server unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If Intel pulls the CPUs down in power draw by 25% while still getting a 30-50% increase, you will be able to get an i7 server model that comes close to the current top iMac within a 30W budget and still leaves room for a 28nm AMD 7000 series GPU, which should double performance over this year's 6000-series equivalent to match the 5770 and 6970M.
I don't expect them to put a GPU in the server model but the middle model will still be a very capable machine.
It's still weird how it jumps to "server". It's more of a marketing gimmick than anything because I guess enough people were using them that way as a light duty server. I haven't seen those models. To me it's still behind. The 5770 and 6970M aren't truly that amazing. It's just that something new can match older higher end tech at a lower wattage now. I think you or the manufacturer may be slightly optimistic here but yeah AMD has done some amazing stuff at lower wattage in the past year or so.
These really aren't valid concerns. I know you really don't want to hear that but Apple can't design a modern machine for yesterdays technology.
"Not valid concerns" is a very poor word choice. Perhaps you meant that they were not germane to your vision of a 'modern' machine: that would be true, but then that's not exactly what we're discussing here.
To the contrary, as far as actually producing and selling a new model, I think it's safe to say that these concerns are very valid: and I think that like myself, many other Mac Pro users have a great deal invested in 'yesterday's technology,' and we're not going to leave it behind simply because it's a couple of years old. I can afford to spend $4K on a machine that will last me several years; I can't afford $9K for a completely new setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Note that I don't believe at this time that Apple will come out with a Mac Pro that is totally unusable for professionals. My concern has always been for those of us more middle of the road in needs.
Of course they will try to come out with something that professionals can use. And as I stated above, that means "something that will allow us to use all of those expensive accessories we've bought."
Now, logic suggests that we will see iMacs with the newest stuff before Mac Pros, for two reasons: first, iMac sales depend on a number of considerations, but a very important one is the image that it is stylish and new. Second, iMac users tend to have less stuff lying around- no extra GPU cards or storage, no extra monitors, and thus are not going to be so concerned about backwards compatibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
However that being said it would be foolish to think the Mac Pro will always have the same enclosure with the same internal components capability.
Nobody said "always." On the other hand, it would be foolish of Apple to introduce something that wouldn't let us use most of what we have, even if it is 'yesterday's' technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
The imac is heavily leveraged by being an all in one. Consider that minus thunderbolt a comparable configuration to the i7 imac on the windows oem end can be purchased for just under $1000. The mini really isn't far off the mark, but it could be better than it is while maintaining Apple's margins without a massive increase in price. Consider that the imac comes with a display starting just $200 higher than the server unit.
Is Apple still using IPS displays on the iMac? Up until very recently, that would have been cutting into their margin a good deal, and if we take that alone into consideration, I don't think there has ever been a comparable configuration on the Windows side.
I know that Apple likes the good stuff, but I've always wondered why use IPS for the iMac, since it seems like overkill. Sure, I know of print houses that use them, but never for jobs that require that sort of accuracy.
Hi guys I'm pleased to see some advancement in the great macpro debate going on here your almost up to approving the next generation of machine as I intimated to over six months ago and still think is the best next thing, that is an eight way PCIe based chassis ditching all legacy drives, it could even use half hight PCIe card designs too, like any new thing... (ie: FCP) it needs some teething time to integrate into the mainstream but Apple are no strangers to introducing next generation leaps are they!
I would like to also see i7 based processors with the new intel liquid cooling system built on PCIe cards too but that may be stretching the precept a bit at the moment.
the only reason one would need more than a single multiCPU in the future would be for render farms or servers and that job would benefit from multiple racked machines all through connected via opticle TB plenty fast enough for tv studio employ and massively interfacability through dedicated PCIe cards. perhaps 3 USB3 sockets too for general periferals.
this concept would minimise case requirement and development cost with a thin PSU down one side, no SATA optical or HD drives just very fast 8 and 16 lane PCIe slots for upto twin GPUs and as many SSDs ect cards in raid as you need the skys really is the limit with totem poled racking, and a single unit would become the perfect MacproX.
and MacOS with integrated server really would cream the processional and high end market.
This modular system would give PCIe designers a platform for developing new cards like the RED Rocket 4K dedicated video processor I'm sure all pro's can imagine their ideal machine simply buy plug and play PCIe the apple way, and I'm sure apple would find a higher end app shop aswell to make it profitable.
"Not valid concerns" is a very poor word choice. Perhaps you meant that they were not germane to your vision of a 'modern' machine: that would be true, but then that's not exactly what we're discussing here.
It really isn't my vision, rather it is an idea of what is possible based on where the electronics is going. So let's not call it my vision, I'm just recognizing that the Mac Pro is a very old approach to computing.
As to the validity of your concerns, really they aren't any more valid than the people who complained about IDE going away, CRT monitors being replaced with LCDs, dot matrix printers being replaced by Lasers or ink jets. By the same token if you think that it is reasonable for Apple to design computers to support your old hardware then yeah your concerns aren't valid. That is the way to stagnation in the market.
I'm trying not to be rude here but if Apple was hamstrung the way you want them to be, do you really think we would have Mac Book AIRs today or even Intel based ones? I can't predict what technology is ready to move into mass production, Apple has the inside track there, what I'm saying is that they can't be concerned with your needs to support legacy hardware when it comes time to transition to new technology.
Quote:
To the contrary, as far as actually producing and selling a new model, I think it's safe to say that these concerns are very valid: and I think that like myself, many other Mac Pro users have a great deal invested in 'yesterday's technology,' and we're not going to leave it behind simply because it's a couple of years old. I can afford to spend $4K on a machine that will last me several years; I can't afford $9K for a completely new setup.
Affordability isn't Apples problem. It certainly is a problem for me thus the drive for an XMac. In your case though how long would you expect Apple to keep the Mac Pros design static? I ask because you need to realize that there will always be guys with two year old machines that will take it personally when the Mac Pro transitions to new technology.
Look at my situation my MBP was new in 2008, since then Apple has implemented several advancements that leave my machine behind. Is it rational for me to demand backwards compatibility? Of course not, especially when some of those improvements are very compelling.
Quote:
Of course they will try to come out with something that professionals can use. And as I stated above, that means "something that will allow us to use all of those expensive accessories we've bought."
I have no idea what the new Mac will look like. All I'm really saying is that it is about time for Apple to transition that platform to newer technologies. The timing is rather good. As to your expensive accessories - to bad. Again I'm not trying to be cruel here just reflecting on the fact that Apple can't make everybody happy while at the same time build a machine to support newer technologies.
Quote:
Now, logic suggests that we will see iMacs with the newest stuff before Mac Pros, for two reasons: first, iMac sales depend on a number of considerations, but a very important one is the image that it is stylish and new. Second, iMac users tend to have less stuff lying around- no extra GPU cards or storage, no extra monitors, and thus are not going to be so concerned about backwards compatibility.
What seems to escape you is that the Mac Pro is a very old design. As such they have to look forward to a modern design, backward compatibility is only a consideration if it does not hold up the march forward.
The other big issue here is your characterization of iMac owners. These guys often have a much hardware lying around as the Mac Pro guys. In one release Thunderbird outdated much of that hardware.
Quote:
Nobody said "always." On the other hand, it would be foolish of Apple to introduce something that wouldn't let us use most of what we have, even if it is 'yesterday's' technology.
Again I don't think Apple is all that concerned. As far as they are concerned you can run your current machine until it is completely out dated. Do you really think we would have the AIRs today if Apple was focused on keeping Mac Book users happy?
Quote:
Is Apple still using IPS displays on the iMac? Up until very recently, that would have been cutting into their margin a good deal, and if we take that alone into consideration, I don't think there has ever been a comparable configuration on the Windows side.
I know that Apple likes the good stuff, but I've always wondered why use IPS for the iMac, since it seems like overkill. Sure, I know of print houses that use them, but never for jobs that require that sort of accuracy.
The iMacs can be a very useful machine for a number of professional uses. It is very much a work station of mid range performance and suitable for general use. If you work in an environment that supports a network server or two the internal storage limitations are not a problem. It is the one man show or smaller corporations where the iMac becomes a problem. Mainly that is an issue of upgradeability and serviceability.
I don't think it is Apples goal to turn the iMac into a graphics professionals work station. It is pretty simple really, that would turn the machine into an expensive niche platform not a mass market computer. Outside your field though the iMac is a very attractive machine. I always have to smile when graphics specialist dismiss the iMac (it happens a lot) because they are going on about a machine never designed for their needs. It makes about as much sense as complaint that the iPhones screen isn't good enough for their work.
In any event back to the Mac Pro. If they do overhaul the machine I do expect them to keep the pros in mind. In a forward looking manner though. One biggie is the FPU which I expect will be built into the motherboard. Why? Thunderbolt is why. I have this suspicion that the GPU will have to be on the motherboard to really work well with TB. Part of that has to do with the need to support multiple TB ports (multiple monitors & professional I/O). I'm 100% certain this will cause complaints, but what should Apple do, punt on new technology?
The 6000-series is a newer design than the 5000-series but the desktop models have more and/or higher clocked processing units. After Effect isn't a GPU app like Motion, it primarily uses the CPU for rendering. The following benchmark is comparing a 6-core Xeon vs 4-core i7:
So? I mean really some body found a benchmark where the current iMac beats a Mac Pro, that should surprise no body as the Mac Pro is an old machine relatively. The Mac Pros advantage comes from people that can exploit the current hardware to their advantage.
Quote:
It's been designed to be small and power efficient. Those aren't synonymous with low-end. The 15" MBP is a high-end laptop but thin and power efficient and can easily replace a desktop.
I will disagree here, Apple goes out of its way to make sure the Mini is the slowest machine they make. It always bench marks slower than the iMacs and laptops it is selling against at anyone time.
Quote:
Just the CPU + GPU. The base Mini is a 35W CPU/GPU, the middle one is 35W CPU + 10-15W GPU and the quad i7 is a 45W CPU/GPU. The Thunderbolt port can supply 10W of power and other parts will consume some power too.
There is no doubt that the power budget is tight. Mind you that isn't a bad thing for people where the Mini is more than enough. It is a frustration for people looking for a bit more.
Quote:
If Intel pulls the CPUs down in power draw by 25% while still getting a 30-50% increase, you will be able to get an i7 server model that comes close to the current top iMac within a 30W budget and still leaves room for a 28nm AMD 7000 series GPU, which should double performance over this year's 6000-series equivalent to match the 5770 and 6970M.
Great if they can deliver! As technology marches forward the Mini becomes more compelling, but it really has a ways to go.
Quote:
I don't expect them to put a GPU in the server model but the middle model will still be a very capable machine.
Calling that machine a server seems to be a cop out. I looks more like they said oops we used up our power budget so let's call this a server.
Quote:
Is your old MBP hyper-threaded? Handbrake flies along on even the i5 dual-cores with 4 threads. It gets 200-400FPS at times encoding H.264.
Handbrake isn't too bad on the machine. It is what happens if you try to run XCode and Safari at the same time or even Safari with flash running. Now click to flash use to help Safari but the reality is modern software is highly threaded and I'm not afraid to run many processes on the machine. The trick is to find the right balance of processors, RAM and other hardware.
The old Mac is not hyper threaded but to be honest I'd go with more real cores anyway over hyper threading. Hyper threading is always tested in a way that makes it look good. That is pretty much expected, but it isn't always groovy in hyper threading land. Even Sun has cut back on threads supported in their new Sparc processors.
Really a highly portable machine with 1-2 high bandwidth slots could sell exceptionally well to photography and cinematography markets.
Those markets don't need highly portable desktop machines. All the pro photographers and video editors I know do most of their work either at the same desk (with powerful hardware that's never moved) or with their less-powerful laptops (to which they'll offload their work to desktop machines and RAIDs). The only examples I can think of where Mac Pro performance would be needed on-set would be in only a few circumstances ... a tiny, tiny percentage of hardware sales, and a market (high-end fashion shots, TV commercials) where there's already a transportation budget built into projects, so a smaller unit wouldn't be a significant cost-saving anyway.
Those markets don't need highly portable desktop machines. All the pro photographers and video editors I know do most of their work either at the same desk (with powerful hardware that's never moved) or with their less-powerful laptops (to which they'll offload their work to desktop machines and RAIDs). The only examples I can think of where Mac Pro performance would be needed on-set would be in only a few circumstances ... a tiny, tiny percentage of hardware sales, and a market (high-end fashion shots, TV commercials) where there's already a transportation budget built into projects, so a smaller unit wouldn't be a significant cost-saving anyway.
I agree-I bring my laptop for two things: portable storage and previews. Personally, I have a strong hunch that I will be using an iPad for this within a few years. In any case, everything gets offloaded to my desktop for processing.
All of the photographers I know, and the few video people I know, do the same thing.
Those markets don't need highly portable desktop machines. All the pro photographers and video editors I know do most of their work either at the same desk (with powerful hardware that's never moved) or with their less-powerful laptops (to which they'll offload their work to desktop machines and RAIDs). The only examples I can think of where Mac Pro performance would be needed on-set would be in only a few circumstances ... a tiny, tiny percentage of hardware sales, and a market (high-end fashion shots, TV commercials) where there's already a transportation budget built into projects, so a smaller unit wouldn't be a significant cost-saving anyway.
It's less common than it used to be a few years ago. Overall though Apple has been trending toward smaller hardware solutions. I'd have less against the mac pro line if it was built really efficiently. It's not. The internal storage solutions are mediocre. It's never had a "good" workstation gpu card option. Whenever they do offer one it's buggy. Basically the appeal to the higher end of the mac pro line is power. Toward the mid to lower portion the only reason to buy one is if you don't have a suitable workaround for features covered by pci slots. It's incredibly awkward forcing a $2500 minimum sale just to match equivalent features in ram, sata options, and PCI slots with a $900 PC. If I don't end up looking at a dual socket model, it's entirely possible my next purchase may be an imac instead in spite of it not being a perfect match for my needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Blue
I agree-I bring my laptop for two things: portable storage and previews. Personally, I have a strong hunch that I will be using an iPad for this within a few years. In any case, everything gets offloaded to my desktop for processing.
All of the photographers I know, and the few video people I know, do the same thing.
I'm not sure if you recall earlier digital backs well. It required a large amount of hardware to support them. The hardware has progressed quite far but it's still nice having a high quality display and fast storage present if you're shooting at the highest resolutions or have an accompanying video solution present (such as a RED camera). I know quite a few photographers as well.
I'm not sure if you recall earlier digital backs well. It required a large amount of hardware to support them. The hardware has progressed quite far but it's still nice having a high quality display and fast storage present if you're shooting at the highest resolutions or have an accompanying video solution present (such as a RED camera). I know quite a few photographers as well.
Of course- my point was that I use my laptop in the manner described, and that I can imagine an iPad fulfilling those functions in a few years. Speculation, of course, but it seems to be the direction we're headed.
Of course- my point was that I use my laptop in the manner described, and that I can imagine an iPad fulfilling those functions in a few years. Speculation, of course, but it seems to be the direction we're headed.
What's interesting is that a lot of apps aimed at people like art directors have been hitting the market. At the moment they're more for browsing photos and choosing things but editing may become more common at some point. Wacom has had their cintiq line for years. I've tried it, but I didn't like it in its current form for a number of reasons. They seem to be popular in animation, but not so much other things. I don't feel it's just the price that turns people away. The ergonomics and display quality aren't quit there in a number of ways. If they had really excellent displays I would have probably looked into ergonomic arms, but finding one that is sturdy enough would be a problem.
What's interesting is that a lot of apps aimed at people like art directors have been hitting the market. At the moment they're more for browsing photos and choosing things but editing may become more common at some point. Wacom has had their cintiq line for years. I've tried it, but I didn't like it in its current form for a number of reasons. They seem to be popular in animation, but not so much other things. I don't feel it's just the price that turns people away. The ergonomics and display quality aren't quit there in a number of ways. If they had really excellent displays I would have probably looked into ergonomic arms, but finding one that is sturdy enough would be a problem.
Yes, I've noticed that, too, and now Adobe seems to be getting into the game, with what appears to be presentation-oriented apps- slide shows and palette displays that you would show to a client. I don't care for the Cintiq, either, and for many of the same reasons I don't think I'll adopt the iPad for editing any time soon.
On the other hand, I can see myself switching to the iPad for storage and review while on the site: not yet, but soon- I'd like a little more speed and a couple more I/O options first.
Regarding ergonomic arms, good luck with that! I think this is the biggest hurdle that tablets will have to overcome before they are used for anything other than minor edits. It's just like the touchscreen PCs that some manufacturers are failing to sell: your arms simply get tired too quickly for sustained use.
On the other hand, I can see myself switching to the iPad for storage and review while on the site: not yet, but soon- I'd like a little more speed and a couple more I/O options first.
Well that's an engineering and manufacturing problem. If they're making something with that kind of rock solid stability, it will be expensive as hell, limiting who will be willing to buy it, driving the price up further. It may look like a simple feat but to support the weight of a tablet display with someone pressing on it without any play, takes a well engineered design due to the need for some freedom in positioning. I'm sure there are other ways to go about solving the issue of ergonomics there.
With a device like the ipad I imagine we'll see an increase in wireless options there both for display and networking. The tablet market could go in any number of directions currently. It's just a matter of time. I could definitely see them greatly displacing laptop sales in the near future. They're not quite there today. Soon they probably will be.
Comments
The 5870 is under 50% faster. You both seem to consider something 50% faster to be significantly faster. I would say that 100% faster is significant. If you are playing a video game, 50% is the difference between running at 20FPS and 30FPS. All you have to do on the lower one is reduce anti-aliasing or resolution.
On graphics here you previous suggested that the imac graphics were probably faster due to being a newer design. They're not and the aftereffects test on that same site showed a nice advantage in favor of the mac pro graphics.
AMD has had some amazing cards out recently at a 75W max tdp. If we do see a significant power consumption drop with ivy bridge/haswell, we could see some excellent options at the 45-65W range start to appear. The mac pro will eventually need a successor of some kind and I don't see a reason they couldn't leverage upward from the mini considering it fits more with their current design sense but has overall been met with mediocre sales. I hate that it's solely designed as a low end platform with the imac occupying the mid range.
On graphics here you previous suggested that the imac graphics were probably faster due to being a newer design. They're not and the aftereffects test on that same site showed a nice advantage in favor of the mac pro graphics.
AMD has had some amazing cards out recently at a 75W max tdp
That is still a considerable amount of power but then again AMD has made great strides in what those cards can do. I could see AMD becoming the only viable discreet GPU maker in a couple of years.
. If we do see a significant power consumption drop with ivy bridge/haswell, we could see some excellent options at the 45-65W range start to appear.
That is exactly what I'm hoping for, something that is relatively low power yet a step above what they put in the Mini. Well if they could manage a 45 to 60 watt processor in the Mini that might work too. I just think such a processor deserves a little more external support to make it worthwhile.
The mac pro will eventually need a successor of some kind and I don't see a reason they couldn't leverage upward from the mini considering it fits more with their current design sense but has overall been met with mediocre sales.
Are you talking Mini here when discussing sales? I ask because I'm not convinced the Mini does that bad sales wise. It certainly does better than the Mac Pro.
I hate that it's solely designed as a low end platform with the imac occupying the mid range.
Yeah that really sucks. Plus I think the two models plus server version is a bit on the stupid side. I would have preferred that the four core model had it's own discreet GPU, preferably a significant step above the model in the middle. I'm not sure what Apples goal is with the current Mini marketing but I do wait for the Ivy Bridge rev as I'm hoping it closes the performance gap.
In the end though the Mini is limited significantly by it's case size. Not even Ivy Bridge can overcome that for all users.
That is still a considerable amount of power but then again AMD has made great strides in what those cards can do. I could see AMD becoming the only viable discreet GPU maker in a couple of years.
I know it is. The 5870 that's optional for the mac pro seems to have a tdp of 188W going by its generic retail version. The one I mentioned is obviously a workstation card so different firmware at least, but it is newer and gives an example of a solid card by AMD under the 100W mark. The gpu currently used in the imac which is designated as part of their mobile line is that high. For a performance desktop gpu it's a truly significant step.
That is exactly what I'm hoping for, something that is relatively low power yet a step above what they put in the Mini. Well if they could manage a 45 to 60 watt processor in the Mini that might work too. I just think such a processor deserves a little more external support to make it worthwhile.
Marvin mentioned 45W before. It sounded like he meant that was the total power budget for the machine. It seems like the quad i7 chip is 45W. The one in the mid range is 35W. I can't find a power budget for that gpu but it's probably quite low. They could have skimped on vram to keep to keep the power draw down. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect they're running pretty tight on cooling. I'd have to stress test one. The appeal to the machine is simply an inexpensive OSX box in relative terms. It's still limited enough that I doubt my next machine will be a mini, but I intend to do some testing. Supposedly next year we'll see a 35W quad i7 chip. Even then I'm unsure that 10W would allow for significantly better gpu power.
Are you talking Mini here when discussing sales? I ask because I'm not convinced the Mini does that bad sales wise. It certainly does better than the Mac Pro.
I've read about shipping volumes before in various articles. It never seems that insane for Apple. The only thing that even slightly interests me about it I guess is that it's a non imac. The value of the imac is heavily leveraged by the inclusion of a display, particularly the 27" model. For me it's actually more cumbersome. I own better displays than the one used there, so it simply hogs a lot of desk real estate. It doesn't matter how thin they make it, as the footprint of a display in terms of depth hasn't been a real factor since crts. If they cut thickness by a quarter of an inch, you don't gain anything from it in terms of usable space.
Yeah that really sucks. Plus I think the two models plus server version is a bit on the stupid side. I would have preferred that the four core model had it's own discreet GPU, preferably a significant step above the model in the middle. I'm not sure what Apples goal is with the current Mini marketing but I do wait for the Ivy Bridge rev as I'm hoping it closes the performance gap.
In the end though the Mini is limited significantly by it's case size. Not even Ivy Bridge can overcome that for all users.
Yeah
I know it is. The 5870 that's optional for the mac pro seems to have a tdp of 188W going by its generic retail version. The one I mentioned is obviously a workstation card so different firmware at least, but it is newer and gives an example of a solid card by AMD under the 100W mark. The gpu currently used in the imac which is designated as part of their mobile line is that high. For a performance desktop gpu it's a truly significant step.
The future does look bright for GPU computing. Though I have this fear that any performance gains we get will soon be eaten by high resolution displays.
Marvin mentioned 45W before.
if he was talking about the processor he may be about right or slightly high. I just check the spec and the Mini power supply is rated 85 watts max AC power in. Subtract out efficiency losts, and power budgeting for the USB, FireWire and Thunderbolt ports and you don't have a lot left. They could have as little as 55 watts budgetted for the motherboard, that includes processor, RAM and support electronics. I say 55 but it could be as high as 65 watts. So depending upon how Apple allocated power they really are tight when the faster hardware is purchased.
It sounded like he meant that was the total power budget for the machine. It seems like the quad i7 chip is 45W. The one in the mid range is 35W. I can't find a power budget for that gpu but it's probably quite low.
I'd guess the GPU is between 10 & 16 watts. Interestingly Intel doesn't spec max power so their processors can exceed stamped power levels briefly. The lack of a quad core model with GPU kinda tells me that there isn't enough power available to drive a GPU in that model.
They could have skimped on vram to keep to keep the power draw down. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect they're running pretty tight on cooling.
Looks like it is an electrical limitation too. I haven't actually had time with the new technology Mini so I can't comment on its cooling practically. However it does look like they made great strides from a distance.
I'd have to stress test one. The appeal to the machine is simply an inexpensive OSX box in relative terms. It's still limited enough that I doubt my next machine will be a mini, but I intend to do some testing. Supposedly next year we'll see a 35W quad i7 chip. Even then I'm unsure that 10W would allow for significantly better gpu power.
I like the Mini a lot but I'm not about to buy a machine these days with only two cores. I can see performance issues on my old MBP due to the lack of cores and RAM so I'm sticking to my guns here.
As to discreet GPUs who knows, there are a few things Apple could do to allocate more power. For example they could drop the FireWire port, drop a USB port to reallocate the power elsewhere. Also Ivy Bridge supposedly has at least some of the TB functionality built in, that again would save some power. They could also go SSD only internally and save some power.
Disk drives still use a lot of power so a solid state solution might be a significant gain. In the end though it comes down to adding up the available power and allocating what is left over to the GPU. Maybe they can get to 25 watts on the GPU. That would be nice.
I've read about shipping volumes before in various articles. It never seems that insane for Apple. The only thing that even slightly interests me about it I guess is that it's a non imac.
Insane probably not however I don't think it is anywhere near as bad as the Pro. As I've said I frequently see the Mini on Apples top sellers list. I have to agree that the non iMac reality is an appeal here even if I would prefer something a bit better. The proverbial XMac if you will.
The value of the imac is heavily leveraged by the inclusion of a display, particularly the 27" model. For me it's actually more cumbersome. I own better displays than the one used there, so it simply hogs a lot of desk real estate. It doesn't matter how thin they make it, as the footprint of a display in terms of depth hasn't been a real factor since crts. If they cut thickness by a quarter of an inch, you don't gain anything from it in terms of usable space.
The display doesn't bother me it is what is behind the display that is a problem. That is the difficulty in getting to and servicing the different components in the machine. Even if you pay somebody else to work on the machine it still adds cost and time to a repair.
Yeah
when I think XMac I think a grown up Mini more than a shrunken Mac Pro. A shrunken Mac Pro would result in a machine designed to support yesterday's technologies. I'd rather see a XMac built to support tomorrows technologies.
In a way Mini is a platform for the technology of tomorrow. The problem is that makes for an expensive solution that is always a little less than desired. Mostly this is due to the small box, you can only get so much into the box at anyone time.
In the end it's just gimmicky marketing on those "server" units. Since I need a new machine in 2012 I'll be testing out options. I'll be watching the prices on 8GB dimms too. Right now 8GB is basically the minimum for me in Windows or OSX. Not everything runs on 2-4. If 8GB dimms are still really expensive, it kills the potential for savings on a mini right there.
This issue with RAM is significant. It is one of the reasons I would like to see a chip set with a triple channel RAN controller. Three sockets would allow the use of 4 GB DIMMs but get you past the 8 GB limit economically. Or the 4GB limit with 2GB DIMMs. Right now I have no need for a 16GB machine, a 6GB machine though would remain useful for a long time. With the cost of 8GB DIMMs though you really can't consider the Mini to be an economical solution if you have high memory requirements. I guess the other option would be a dual channel system with to banks for a capacity of four DIMMs. That isn't likely to happen in the Mini though.
I believe that Ivy Bridge will give Apple the opportunity to dramatically improve the Mini. The problem is will they do that or go for a minimal system as they have in the past.
The value of the imac is heavily leveraged by the inclusion of a display, particularly the 27" model. For me it's actually more cumbersome. I own better displays than the one used there, so it simply hogs a lot of desk real estate. It doesn't matter how thin they make it, as the footprint of a display in terms of depth hasn't been a real factor since crts. If they cut thickness by a quarter of an inch, you don't gain anything from it in terms of usable space.
I agree with you completely; we're in the same boat. Although I think we must give Apple due credit-the iMac display is far superior to anything else you can get in such a configuration-I use two displays that together represent a considerable investment, and I'm not about to put one in storage. So yes, the inclusion of the display keeps me from considering an iMac, which otherwise fits most of my needs quite well.
As to discreet GPUs who knows, there are a few things Apple could do to allocate more power. For example they could drop the FireWire port, drop a USB port to reallocate the power elsewhere. Also Ivy Bridge supposedly has at least some of the TB functionality built in, that again would save some power. They could also go SSD only internally and save some power.
when I think XMac I think a grown up Mini more than a shrunken Mac Pro. A shrunken Mac Pro would result in a machine designed to support yesterday's technologies. I'd rather see a XMac built to support tomorrows technologies.
This reminds me of another concern that's been nagging me: in the past, Apple has not been shy about abandoning technology that it considers out of date. Since we've been discussing new chipsets, I/O, and forms, I wonder if one reason we haven't seen a Mac Pro update is because, as some have suggested in this thread, plans are in the works for something radically new?
I think this would be a concern for many Pro users, as we have a lot invested in 'older' technologies, such as storage, and certainly don't want to replace it all. In other words, would a new design limit memory slots, forcing some of us to buy 8GB (or more) dimms? Would the new chipsets still support Boot Camp? Would we be able to install our internal raid? I'm all for something that's more powerful, but I don't want (and can't afford) to replace everything else in order to get it.
I agree with you completely; we're in the same boat. Although I think we must give Apple due credit-the iMac display is far superior to anything else you can get in such a configuration-I use two displays that together represent a considerable investment, and I'm not about to put one in storage. So yes, the inclusion of the display keeps me from considering an iMac, which otherwise fits most of my needs quite well.
Yeah same here, but I have specific concerns about imacs. One is with the top available cpus if you're running that thing hard for a long period of time as in processing 1-2000 raw files (I recall you're a photographer) or rendering stills or video at higher resolutions, they get quite hot. I've also seen some screens that really did not age well. Sometimes it's terrible, but I have yet to see that on the newest ones. Have you ever seen that blotchy magenta cast that starts around the edges on some? It could have been heat or it could have been a panel flaw but I've seen it a number of times. Overall regarding displays yes it's competitive for computers of similar form factor. It's still a lot to spend just to get said form factor.
[QUOTE=Joe Blue;1965946
This reminds me of another concern that's been nagging me: in the past, Apple has not been shy about abandoning technology that it considers out of date. Since we've been discussing new chipsets, I/O, and forms, I wonder if one reason we haven't seen a Mac Pro update is because, as some have suggested in this thread, plans are in the works for something radically new?
I think this would be a concern for many Pro users, as we have a lot invested in 'older' technologies, such as storage, and certainly don't want to replace it all. In other words, would a new design limit memory slots, forcing some of us to buy 8GB (or more) dimms? Would the new chipsets still support Boot Camp? Would we be able to install our internal raid? I'm all for something that's more powerful, but I don't want (and can't afford) to replace everything else in order to get it.[/QUOTE]
Ummm I can address this to a degree. First boot camp doesn't have to go anywhere. Macs use the same hardware as windows outside of the tablet/phone market. The design of the mac pro is kind of archaic/dated. It doesn't make amazing use of the space. It doesn't have cooling which vastly exceeds that of other systems. It is quiet which is nice. Four memory slots + internal sata bays is pretty much the norm for any midrange configuration these days. The mac pro is really light on features for its size and price point. It's just an overall lackluster solution. If you look at the history of component pricing in the line, we should have a hexacore baseline in that line.
I agree with you completely; we're in the same boat. Although I think we must give Apple due credit-the iMac display is far superior to anything else you can get in such a configuration-I use two displays that together represent a considerable investment, and I'm not about to put one in storage. So yes, the inclusion of the display keeps me from considering an iMac, which otherwise fits most of my needs quite well.
This reminds me of another concern that's been nagging me: in the past, Apple has not been shy about abandoning technology that it considers out of date. Since we've been discussing new chipsets, I/O, and forms, I wonder if one reason we haven't seen a Mac Pro update is because, as some have suggested in this thread, plans are in the works for something radically new?
I don't have details and the source is weak but the rumor is that Intel or somebody found a bug in the Sandy Bridge E series chips that where due out this quarter. So it could be 2012 before we see a new Mac Pro. Note that this is an issue even if the platform is radically new.
I think this would be a concern for many Pro users, as we have a lot invested in 'older' technologies, such as storage, and certainly don't want to replace it all. In other words, would a new design limit memory slots, forcing some of us to buy 8GB (or more) dimms?
These really aren't valid concerns. I know you really don't want to hear that but Apple can't design a modern machine for yesterdays technology. Earlier today I was reading about Intel/Micron creating a new partnership with I believe Samsung to help standardize a very high speed memory solution. DIMMs could quickly become a thing of the past when it comes to memory solutions.
In any event the point is the market isn't well served by Apple stressing backwards compatibility on important parts like RAM. Sure it is nice when possible, but would you really want to put 33MHz memory in a Mac Pro? One day current memory technology will die, just like the old SIMMs of the past.
On another note it looks like Intel will transition its SSD solutions to PCI-Express soon. Even SATA will die soon.
Would the new chipsets still support Boot Camp? Would we be able to install our internal raid? I'm all for something that's more powerful, but I don't want (and can't afford) to replace everything else in order to get it.
Boot camp most likely. Internal RAIDs who knows.
Note that I don't believe at this time that Apple will come out with a Mac Pro that is totally unusable for professionals. My concern has always been for those of us more middle of the road in needs. However that being said it would be foolish to think the Mac Pro will always have the same enclosure with the same internal components capability.
For you the unfortunate reality is that you will have to wait to see what will be released. They could recycle the same old housing or they could go to something more flexible. I'm still thinking that the best path for Apple would be a smaller enclosure that fits on a standard rack well or looks good on the desktop. This would solve the hand wringing about an Apple server and the low sales of the Mac Pro. That is assuming they control the costs properly.
On graphics here you previous suggested that the imac graphics were probably faster due to being a newer design. They're not and the aftereffects test on that same site showed a nice advantage in favor of the mac pro graphics.
The 6000-series is a newer design than the 5000-series but the desktop models have more and/or higher clocked processing units. After Effect isn't a GPU app like Motion, it primarily uses the CPU for rendering. The following benchmark is comparing a 6-core Xeon vs 4-core i7:
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11d.html
I hate that it's solely designed as a low end platform with the imac occupying the mid range.
It's been designed to be small and power efficient. Those aren't synonymous with low-end. The 15" MBP is a high-end laptop but thin and power efficient and can easily replace a desktop.
Marvin mentioned 45W before. It sounded like he meant that was the total power budget for the machine.
Just the CPU + GPU. The base Mini is a 35W CPU/GPU, the middle one is 35W CPU + 10-15W GPU and the quad i7 is a 45W CPU/GPU. The Thunderbolt port can supply 10W of power and other parts will consume some power too.
If Intel pulls the CPUs down in power draw by 25% while still getting a 30-50% increase, you will be able to get an i7 server model that comes close to the current top iMac within a 30W budget and still leaves room for a 28nm AMD 7000 series GPU, which should double performance over this year's 6000-series equivalent to match the 5770 and 6970M.
I don't expect them to put a GPU in the server model but the middle model will still be a very capable machine.
I can see performance issues on my old MBP due to the lack of cores and RAM so I'm sticking to my guns here.
Is your old MBP hyper-threaded? Handbrake flies along on even the i5 dual-cores with 4 threads. It gets 200-400FPS at times encoding H.264.
The 6000-series is a newer design than the 5000-series but the desktop models have more and/or higher clocked processing units. After Effect isn't a GPU app like Motion, it primarily uses the CPU for rendering. The following benchmark is comparing a 6-core Xeon vs 4-core i7:
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11d.html
There's another one that has a gpu test in there. i'll find it later.
It's been designed to be small and power efficient. Those aren't synonymous with low-end. The 15" MBP is a high-end laptop but thin and power efficient and can easily replace a desktop.
Bleh see for some purposes I do agree. It depends how much power you need. As I've mentioned I don't like the current flow to Apple's line as a whole. The mini has come a long way, but remember it started out as a definitively low end solution with the G4 setup. The imac is okay but it's not really my thing entirely. What I dislike is how horrid of a value the mac pro remains. I'd really like to see them generate kind of a power desktop line but something which could serve more markets than the current setup. The imac is heavily leveraged by being an all in one. Consider that minus thunderbolt a comparable configuration to the i7 imac on the windows oem end can be purchased for just under $1000. The mini really isn't far off the mark, but it could be better than it is while maintaining Apple's margins without a massive increase in price. Consider that the imac comes with a display starting just $200 higher than the server unit.
If Intel pulls the CPUs down in power draw by 25% while still getting a 30-50% increase, you will be able to get an i7 server model that comes close to the current top iMac within a 30W budget and still leaves room for a 28nm AMD 7000 series GPU, which should double performance over this year's 6000-series equivalent to match the 5770 and 6970M.
I don't expect them to put a GPU in the server model but the middle model will still be a very capable machine.
It's still weird how it jumps to "server". It's more of a marketing gimmick than anything because I guess enough people were using them that way as a light duty server. I haven't seen those models. To me it's still behind. The 5770 and 6970M aren't truly that amazing. It's just that something new can match older higher end tech at a lower wattage now. I think you or the manufacturer may be slightly optimistic here but yeah AMD has done some amazing stuff at lower wattage in the past year or so.
These really aren't valid concerns. I know you really don't want to hear that but Apple can't design a modern machine for yesterdays technology.
"Not valid concerns" is a very poor word choice. Perhaps you meant that they were not germane to your vision of a 'modern' machine: that would be true, but then that's not exactly what we're discussing here.
To the contrary, as far as actually producing and selling a new model, I think it's safe to say that these concerns are very valid: and I think that like myself, many other Mac Pro users have a great deal invested in 'yesterday's technology,' and we're not going to leave it behind simply because it's a couple of years old. I can afford to spend $4K on a machine that will last me several years; I can't afford $9K for a completely new setup.
Note that I don't believe at this time that Apple will come out with a Mac Pro that is totally unusable for professionals. My concern has always been for those of us more middle of the road in needs.
Of course they will try to come out with something that professionals can use. And as I stated above, that means "something that will allow us to use all of those expensive accessories we've bought."
Now, logic suggests that we will see iMacs with the newest stuff before Mac Pros, for two reasons: first, iMac sales depend on a number of considerations, but a very important one is the image that it is stylish and new. Second, iMac users tend to have less stuff lying around- no extra GPU cards or storage, no extra monitors, and thus are not going to be so concerned about backwards compatibility.
However that being said it would be foolish to think the Mac Pro will always have the same enclosure with the same internal components capability.
Nobody said "always." On the other hand, it would be foolish of Apple to introduce something that wouldn't let us use most of what we have, even if it is 'yesterday's' technology.
The imac is heavily leveraged by being an all in one. Consider that minus thunderbolt a comparable configuration to the i7 imac on the windows oem end can be purchased for just under $1000. The mini really isn't far off the mark, but it could be better than it is while maintaining Apple's margins without a massive increase in price. Consider that the imac comes with a display starting just $200 higher than the server unit.
Is Apple still using IPS displays on the iMac? Up until very recently, that would have been cutting into their margin a good deal, and if we take that alone into consideration, I don't think there has ever been a comparable configuration on the Windows side.
I know that Apple likes the good stuff, but I've always wondered why use IPS for the iMac, since it seems like overkill. Sure, I know of print houses that use them, but never for jobs that require that sort of accuracy.
I would like to also see i7 based processors with the new intel liquid cooling system built on PCIe cards too but that may be stretching the precept a bit at the moment.
the only reason one would need more than a single multiCPU in the future would be for render farms or servers and that job would benefit from multiple racked machines all through connected via opticle TB plenty fast enough for tv studio employ and massively interfacability through dedicated PCIe cards. perhaps 3 USB3 sockets too for general periferals.
this concept would minimise case requirement and development cost with a thin PSU down one side, no SATA optical or HD drives just very fast 8 and 16 lane PCIe slots for upto twin GPUs and as many SSDs ect cards in raid as you need the skys really is the limit with totem poled racking, and a single unit would become the perfect MacproX.
and MacOS with integrated server really would cream the processional and high end market.
This modular system would give PCIe designers a platform for developing new cards like the RED Rocket 4K dedicated video processor I'm sure all pro's can imagine their ideal machine simply buy plug and play PCIe the apple way, and I'm sure apple would find a higher end app shop aswell to make it profitable.
I could even be impressed enough to come back.
Hmmm! OK enough dreaming back to work...
"Not valid concerns" is a very poor word choice. Perhaps you meant that they were not germane to your vision of a 'modern' machine: that would be true, but then that's not exactly what we're discussing here.
It really isn't my vision, rather it is an idea of what is possible based on where the electronics is going. So let's not call it my vision, I'm just recognizing that the Mac Pro is a very old approach to computing.
As to the validity of your concerns, really they aren't any more valid than the people who complained about IDE going away, CRT monitors being replaced with LCDs, dot matrix printers being replaced by Lasers or ink jets. By the same token if you think that it is reasonable for Apple to design computers to support your old hardware then yeah your concerns aren't valid. That is the way to stagnation in the market.
I'm trying not to be rude here but if Apple was hamstrung the way you want them to be, do you really think we would have Mac Book AIRs today or even Intel based ones? I can't predict what technology is ready to move into mass production, Apple has the inside track there, what I'm saying is that they can't be concerned with your needs to support legacy hardware when it comes time to transition to new technology.
To the contrary, as far as actually producing and selling a new model, I think it's safe to say that these concerns are very valid: and I think that like myself, many other Mac Pro users have a great deal invested in 'yesterday's technology,' and we're not going to leave it behind simply because it's a couple of years old. I can afford to spend $4K on a machine that will last me several years; I can't afford $9K for a completely new setup.
Affordability isn't Apples problem. It certainly is a problem for me thus the drive for an XMac. In your case though how long would you expect Apple to keep the Mac Pros design static? I ask because you need to realize that there will always be guys with two year old machines that will take it personally when the Mac Pro transitions to new technology.
Look at my situation my MBP was new in 2008, since then Apple has implemented several advancements that leave my machine behind. Is it rational for me to demand backwards compatibility? Of course not, especially when some of those improvements are very compelling.
Of course they will try to come out with something that professionals can use. And as I stated above, that means "something that will allow us to use all of those expensive accessories we've bought."
I have no idea what the new Mac will look like. All I'm really saying is that it is about time for Apple to transition that platform to newer technologies. The timing is rather good. As to your expensive accessories - to bad. Again I'm not trying to be cruel here just reflecting on the fact that Apple can't make everybody happy while at the same time build a machine to support newer technologies.
Now, logic suggests that we will see iMacs with the newest stuff before Mac Pros, for two reasons: first, iMac sales depend on a number of considerations, but a very important one is the image that it is stylish and new. Second, iMac users tend to have less stuff lying around- no extra GPU cards or storage, no extra monitors, and thus are not going to be so concerned about backwards compatibility.
What seems to escape you is that the Mac Pro is a very old design. As such they have to look forward to a modern design, backward compatibility is only a consideration if it does not hold up the march forward.
The other big issue here is your characterization of iMac owners. These guys often have a much hardware lying around as the Mac Pro guys. In one release Thunderbird outdated much of that hardware.
Nobody said "always." On the other hand, it would be foolish of Apple to introduce something that wouldn't let us use most of what we have, even if it is 'yesterday's' technology.
Again I don't think Apple is all that concerned. As far as they are concerned you can run your current machine until it is completely out dated. Do you really think we would have the AIRs today if Apple was focused on keeping Mac Book users happy?
Is Apple still using IPS displays on the iMac? Up until very recently, that would have been cutting into their margin a good deal, and if we take that alone into consideration, I don't think there has ever been a comparable configuration on the Windows side.
I know that Apple likes the good stuff, but I've always wondered why use IPS for the iMac, since it seems like overkill. Sure, I know of print houses that use them, but never for jobs that require that sort of accuracy.
The iMacs can be a very useful machine for a number of professional uses. It is very much a work station of mid range performance and suitable for general use. If you work in an environment that supports a network server or two the internal storage limitations are not a problem. It is the one man show or smaller corporations where the iMac becomes a problem. Mainly that is an issue of upgradeability and serviceability.
I don't think it is Apples goal to turn the iMac into a graphics professionals work station. It is pretty simple really, that would turn the machine into an expensive niche platform not a mass market computer. Outside your field though the iMac is a very attractive machine. I always have to smile when graphics specialist dismiss the iMac (it happens a lot) because they are going on about a machine never designed for their needs. It makes about as much sense as complaint that the iPhones screen isn't good enough for their work.
In any event back to the Mac Pro. If they do overhaul the machine I do expect them to keep the pros in mind. In a forward looking manner though. One biggie is the FPU which I expect will be built into the motherboard. Why? Thunderbolt is why. I have this suspicion that the GPU will have to be on the motherboard to really work well with TB. Part of that has to do with the need to support multiple TB ports (multiple monitors & professional I/O). I'm 100% certain this will cause complaints, but what should Apple do, punt on new technology?
The 6000-series is a newer design than the 5000-series but the desktop models have more and/or higher clocked processing units. After Effect isn't a GPU app like Motion, it primarily uses the CPU for rendering. The following benchmark is comparing a 6-core Xeon vs 4-core i7:
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11d.html
So? I mean really some body found a benchmark where the current iMac beats a Mac Pro, that should surprise no body as the Mac Pro is an old machine relatively. The Mac Pros advantage comes from people that can exploit the current hardware to their advantage.
It's been designed to be small and power efficient. Those aren't synonymous with low-end. The 15" MBP is a high-end laptop but thin and power efficient and can easily replace a desktop.
I will disagree here, Apple goes out of its way to make sure the Mini is the slowest machine they make. It always bench marks slower than the iMacs and laptops it is selling against at anyone time.
Just the CPU + GPU. The base Mini is a 35W CPU/GPU, the middle one is 35W CPU + 10-15W GPU and the quad i7 is a 45W CPU/GPU. The Thunderbolt port can supply 10W of power and other parts will consume some power too.
There is no doubt that the power budget is tight. Mind you that isn't a bad thing for people where the Mini is more than enough. It is a frustration for people looking for a bit more.
If Intel pulls the CPUs down in power draw by 25% while still getting a 30-50% increase, you will be able to get an i7 server model that comes close to the current top iMac within a 30W budget and still leaves room for a 28nm AMD 7000 series GPU, which should double performance over this year's 6000-series equivalent to match the 5770 and 6970M.
Great if they can deliver! As technology marches forward the Mini becomes more compelling, but it really has a ways to go.
I don't expect them to put a GPU in the server model but the middle model will still be a very capable machine.
Calling that machine a server seems to be a cop out. I looks more like they said oops we used up our power budget so let's call this a server.
Is your old MBP hyper-threaded? Handbrake flies along on even the i5 dual-cores with 4 threads. It gets 200-400FPS at times encoding H.264.
Handbrake isn't too bad on the machine. It is what happens if you try to run XCode and Safari at the same time or even Safari with flash running. Now click to flash use to help Safari but the reality is modern software is highly threaded and I'm not afraid to run many processes on the machine. The trick is to find the right balance of processors, RAM and other hardware.
The old Mac is not hyper threaded but to be honest I'd go with more real cores anyway over hyper threading. Hyper threading is always tested in a way that makes it look good. That is pretty much expected, but it isn't always groovy in hyper threading land. Even Sun has cut back on threads supported in their new Sparc processors.
Really a highly portable machine with 1-2 high bandwidth slots could sell exceptionally well to photography and cinematography markets.
Those markets don't need highly portable desktop machines. All the pro photographers and video editors I know do most of their work either at the same desk (with powerful hardware that's never moved) or with their less-powerful laptops (to which they'll offload their work to desktop machines and RAIDs). The only examples I can think of where Mac Pro performance would be needed on-set would be in only a few circumstances ... a tiny, tiny percentage of hardware sales, and a market (high-end fashion shots, TV commercials) where there's already a transportation budget built into projects, so a smaller unit wouldn't be a significant cost-saving anyway.
Those markets don't need highly portable desktop machines. All the pro photographers and video editors I know do most of their work either at the same desk (with powerful hardware that's never moved) or with their less-powerful laptops (to which they'll offload their work to desktop machines and RAIDs). The only examples I can think of where Mac Pro performance would be needed on-set would be in only a few circumstances ... a tiny, tiny percentage of hardware sales, and a market (high-end fashion shots, TV commercials) where there's already a transportation budget built into projects, so a smaller unit wouldn't be a significant cost-saving anyway.
I agree-I bring my laptop for two things: portable storage and previews. Personally, I have a strong hunch that I will be using an iPad for this within a few years. In any case, everything gets offloaded to my desktop for processing.
All of the photographers I know, and the few video people I know, do the same thing.
Those markets don't need highly portable desktop machines. All the pro photographers and video editors I know do most of their work either at the same desk (with powerful hardware that's never moved) or with their less-powerful laptops (to which they'll offload their work to desktop machines and RAIDs). The only examples I can think of where Mac Pro performance would be needed on-set would be in only a few circumstances ... a tiny, tiny percentage of hardware sales, and a market (high-end fashion shots, TV commercials) where there's already a transportation budget built into projects, so a smaller unit wouldn't be a significant cost-saving anyway.
It's less common than it used to be a few years ago. Overall though Apple has been trending toward smaller hardware solutions. I'd have less against the mac pro line if it was built really efficiently. It's not. The internal storage solutions are mediocre. It's never had a "good" workstation gpu card option. Whenever they do offer one it's buggy. Basically the appeal to the higher end of the mac pro line is power. Toward the mid to lower portion the only reason to buy one is if you don't have a suitable workaround for features covered by pci slots. It's incredibly awkward forcing a $2500 minimum sale just to match equivalent features in ram, sata options, and PCI slots with a $900 PC. If I don't end up looking at a dual socket model, it's entirely possible my next purchase may be an imac instead in spite of it not being a perfect match for my needs.
I agree-I bring my laptop for two things: portable storage and previews. Personally, I have a strong hunch that I will be using an iPad for this within a few years. In any case, everything gets offloaded to my desktop for processing.
All of the photographers I know, and the few video people I know, do the same thing.
I'm not sure if you recall earlier digital backs well. It required a large amount of hardware to support them. The hardware has progressed quite far but it's still nice having a high quality display and fast storage present if you're shooting at the highest resolutions or have an accompanying video solution present (such as a RED camera). I know quite a few photographers as well.
I'm not sure if you recall earlier digital backs well. It required a large amount of hardware to support them. The hardware has progressed quite far but it's still nice having a high quality display and fast storage present if you're shooting at the highest resolutions or have an accompanying video solution present (such as a RED camera). I know quite a few photographers as well.
Of course- my point was that I use my laptop in the manner described, and that I can imagine an iPad fulfilling those functions in a few years. Speculation, of course, but it seems to be the direction we're headed.
Of course- my point was that I use my laptop in the manner described, and that I can imagine an iPad fulfilling those functions in a few years. Speculation, of course, but it seems to be the direction we're headed.
What's interesting is that a lot of apps aimed at people like art directors have been hitting the market. At the moment they're more for browsing photos and choosing things but editing may become more common at some point. Wacom has had their cintiq line for years. I've tried it, but I didn't like it in its current form for a number of reasons. They seem to be popular in animation, but not so much other things. I don't feel it's just the price that turns people away. The ergonomics and display quality aren't quit there in a number of ways. If they had really excellent displays I would have probably looked into ergonomic arms, but finding one that is sturdy enough would be a problem.
What's interesting is that a lot of apps aimed at people like art directors have been hitting the market. At the moment they're more for browsing photos and choosing things but editing may become more common at some point. Wacom has had their cintiq line for years. I've tried it, but I didn't like it in its current form for a number of reasons. They seem to be popular in animation, but not so much other things. I don't feel it's just the price that turns people away. The ergonomics and display quality aren't quit there in a number of ways. If they had really excellent displays I would have probably looked into ergonomic arms, but finding one that is sturdy enough would be a problem.
Yes, I've noticed that, too, and now Adobe seems to be getting into the game, with what appears to be presentation-oriented apps- slide shows and palette displays that you would show to a client. I don't care for the Cintiq, either, and for many of the same reasons I don't think I'll adopt the iPad for editing any time soon.
On the other hand, I can see myself switching to the iPad for storage and review while on the site: not yet, but soon- I'd like a little more speed and a couple more I/O options first.
Regarding ergonomic arms, good luck with that! I think this is the biggest hurdle that tablets will have to overcome before they are used for anything other than minor edits. It's just like the touchscreen PCs that some manufacturers are failing to sell: your arms simply get tired too quickly for sustained use.
On the other hand, I can see myself switching to the iPad for storage and review while on the site: not yet, but soon- I'd like a little more speed and a couple more I/O options first.
Well that's an engineering and manufacturing problem. If they're making something with that kind of rock solid stability, it will be expensive as hell, limiting who will be willing to buy it, driving the price up further. It may look like a simple feat but to support the weight of a tablet display with someone pressing on it without any play, takes a well engineered design due to the need for some freedom in positioning. I'm sure there are other ways to go about solving the issue of ergonomics there.
With a device like the ipad I imagine we'll see an increase in wireless options there both for display and networking. The tablet market could go in any number of directions currently. It's just a matter of time. I could definitely see them greatly displacing laptop sales in the near future. They're not quite there today. Soon they probably will be.